Sen. David J. Brightbill, the Pennsylvania Senate's Republican leader, has good intentions in wanting to limit the size of annual increases in state spending. His proposed legislation would restrict spending increases to the lesser of the prior three-year average percentage increases in personal income or inflation plus population.

Brightbill says that if the legislation passes the House and Senate but is not signed by Gov. Ed Rendell, he would push for a constitutional amendment to achieve his goal. That ultimately would require voter approval.

But the state General Assembly and governor's office shouldn't need a formal spending cap via legislation or constitutional amendment to control spending. They should be able to achieve that end via the responsibility to which they were entrusted when they were elected.

In opposing the Brightbill initiative, Rendell made a good point - that an idea like the senator's would be workable in good economic times but would be an albatross in bad economic times.

The legislative and executive branches should have flexibility based on the times, with good fiscal judgment always the goal - although, admittedly, that does not always happen.

The fact is that the state's incoming revenues already serve as a spending cap, since the state constitution mandates a balanced budget.

Current Republican lawmakers aren't happy with Rendell because of a school funding snafu during his first year in office, but about half of the budgets of Republican Govs. Tom Ridge and Mark Schweiker over the previous eight years would have fallen outside the parameters of what Brightbill proposes.

If state politicians can't control spending without being forced by law or constitutional amendment to do so, they should pursue another occupation without such an important demand.